Alvin R's blog

A U.S. Customs Agent on duty when controversial drug pilot and “soldier of fortune” Michael Brassington attempted to re-enter the US through Fort Lauderdale International Airport in April of 2004 was instructed by a Supervisor at Immigrations & Customs Enforcement (ICE) to treat Brassington—a long-time employee and business associate of Wallace J. Hilliard, owner of the flight school that taught Mohamed Atta to fly— as a “grave threat to national security.”

The news comes as the former Guyanese military pilot prepares to go on trial in a Federal Courthouse in Newark next month for recklessly endangering the lives of passengers, whose number includes ex-Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton as well as numerous celebrities.

The disclosure, from a soon-to-be-released documentary, “The New American Drug Lords,” is a reminder, more than eight years later, of the unfinished nature of the investigation into the 9/11 attack.

Scott Fenstermaker has become the lightning rod for 9/11. He is the only defense lawyer mentioned in the upcoming trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators. Although he won’t be defending them in court, he’s been pilloried by the press for daring to suggest that these detainees have any legal rights.

I called him this weekend, and asked him why.

Scott Fenstermaker has represented Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali in various legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Ali stands accused of conspiracy, murder, destruction of property, hijacking, and terrorism for his part in the September 11th attacks. I could not understand why Mr. Fenstermaker would not defend his client in court, so I began the interview by asking him to clarify this:

TP: Why won’t you represent Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali when he stands trial in New York for the September 11th attacks?

SF: The government would not let me represent him.

TP: Why not?

SF: Well, that’s a good question. The government goes crazy every time the detainees want me to represent them, and the government doesn’t like it.

TP: How does the government prevent you from representing the detainees?

I highly recommend this book to the 9/11 truth community. The review below comes from the Amazon page.

Nick Bryant's book is an excellent, even-handed investigation of a decades old scandal that is still being covered up to this day, and rewards the reader with even greater levels of detail and corroboration than the previous books on the subject (Franklin Cover-up and Carefully Crafted Hoax, both written well over a decade ago). Witness after witness corroborates the story of child trafficking and prostitution used to blackmail and ensnare powerful politicians, and the blatantly obvious cover-up that was "carefully crafted" by the FBI, law enforcement and the media. Readers of ex-Senator John DeCamp's book were probably already completely convinced of the corruption and cover-up surrounding Franklin, but Bryant's book nails that point home with even greater corroboration and updated information from the past few years. I would consider this book required reading and recommend it to everyone!

The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

In this interview Kevin Ryan discusses the science and psychology of 9/11. He also mentions an upcoming paper that provides strong evidence of incendiary residues found in the World Trade Center dust. Ryan, who is one of the co-authors of the paper, says that it is "...much more conclusive than anything we've published before, and is supported by considerable physical testing."

American Buddhist Net News
2/14/09

ABN: Kevin, you have been a central figure in the 9/11 truth movement. What have you learned from that experience?

Okay, well the more research I do into the now infamous Ms. Jean C. Duley - the "therapist" who filed a restraining order against the alleged anthrax attacks suspect Bruce E. Ivins - the more her story sounds like a whole load of crap.

Let's rehash Ms. Duley's role in the whole saga.

According to The Smoking Gun, documents they obtained and posted show that Ms. Duley filed a restraining order request against Bruce Ivins on July 24th. In that complaint, she wrote the following (the errors are hers):

client has a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats & actions toward theripist. Dr. David Irwin his psychiatrist called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions will testify with other details FBI involved, currently under investigation & will be charged with 5 capital murders. I have been subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury August 1, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

It is hard to know where to begin with this piece of work, but let us start with the obvious:

Excellent piece, well-worth reading. Shows what we are up against. Alvin
____________

By Ken Silverstein

Try to list the stakes at play in the congressional elections this fall, and one might settle on health care, taxes, immigration, Iraq. Seldom considered, though, is an issue of more direct importance to the members of Congress themselves: Which party will get to live more lushly in the nation’s capital, where those who control the levers of legislation also command the most and best perks? Washington by and large is a restrained, workaday sort of town, its residents not known for high living; but a significant exception can always be found among the denizens of Capitol Hill, and especially among the legislators who command a majority there. For this convivial crew and its hangers-on, the most pressing matter to be decided on Election Day is, as ever, whether they can hold on to that majority and all its accompanying boons.

The most lavish benefit of winning a congressional campaign is, ironically enough, the right to keep on campaigning—and therefore to keep raising and spending donor money.

(Interesting article, we mirrored this when it first came out in January of this year. -rep.)

Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before the 9/11 attacks never investigated?

Had an investigation been done into the crime of failing to file the “currency transaction reports” in August 2001, then we would know who made the cash withdrawals in $100 bills amounting to the $5 billion surge.

by Jim Hogue

It's been over six years since 9/11, but U.S. regulatory entities have been slow to follow through with reports about the complex financial transactions that occurred just prior to and following the attacks. Such research could shed light on such questions as who was behind them—and who benefited—and could help lay to rest the rumors that have been festering.

Sprained my toe so I have had some extra time to wander internet message boards. Far as I can tell 9/11 truth is doing very well.

Here is another pro-OCT argument I saw today. It's building in Holland that collapses due to fire. Some people say it shows that our claims about no steel-frame building collapsing due to fire have been disproved.

Recently I have seen the following argument against 9/11 truth with increased frequency:

"I don't believe it was an inside job because they would have implicated Iraq, not Saudi Arabia, if it had been."

Another increasingly common one is:

"If it had been an inside job, they would have planted WMD in Iraq."

I think both of these arguments are a very good sign. They are a long way from what we used to hear---"Yous is a bunch of %^$#& freaks and nuts!"

Both of these arguments contain the assumption that it could have been an inside job and require their proponent to think from that point of view, thus taking the matter much more seriously than in the past.

I wonder if others have noticed this and what people think are the best really short answers to these two arguments.

This sensitive US military counter-insurgency manual could be described as "What we learned about running death squads and propping up corrupt government in Latin America and how to apply it to other places". Its contents are both history defining for Latin America and, given the continued role of US Force in the suppression of insurgencies and guerilla movements, history making.

US Army Field Manual FM 31-20-3, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces; Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washinton, DC. 2004 edition. Made US Army doctrine (policy) on 20 September 1994; 219 printed pages. Verified by Wikileaks editorial board. Since the manual is US Army doctrine there are also public references to the title and tables of content elsewhere.

Example extracts follow. Note that the manual is 219 pages and contains substantial material throughout, including technical and procedural descriptions which have not been presented here.